On Thursday, 19 September 2019 06:23:26 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
> On 18/09/2019 01:37, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Marc's proposal is that we should accept that these things are rare and
> > simply correct when they do happen. Since our code is tested with the
> > currently lat
On Thursday, 19 September 2019 06:28:01 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
> Thanks! This would also bring up the question on whether it's of any
> importance what values the feature-testing macros are defined to
There are some features that got updated to newer standards in C++14 and
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 16:29, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
>
> On 19/09/2019 14:56, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > I think Peppe's concern, while somewhat theoretical, is a valid one.
> > I'll talk to SG10 about this so that
> > we hopefully never run into the problem in practice.
>
> Th
On 19/09/2019 14:56, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
I think Peppe's concern, while somewhat theoretical, is a valid one.
I'll talk to SG10 about this so that
we hopefully never run into the problem in practice.
Thanks! This would also bring up the question on whether it's of any
importance what valu
On 18/09/2019 01:37, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Marc's proposal is that we should accept that these things are rare and simply
correct when they do happen. Since our code is tested with the currently
latest versions of all compilers, we're fairly sure that any such macro works
with the compilers that
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 09:28, Lars Knoll wrote:
>
> > On 18 Sep 2019, at 01:37, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 17 September 2019 16:05:34 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> > wrote:
> >> While I agree that at the moment it has virtually never happened, it
> >> doesn't mean it cou
> On 18 Sep 2019, at 01:37, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 17 September 2019 16:05:34 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
> wrote:
>> While I agree that at the moment it has virtually never happened, it
>> doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future. Even today we have
>> compilers s
On Tuesday, 17 September 2019 16:05:34 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
> While I agree that at the moment it has virtually never happened, it
> doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future. Even today we have
> compilers such as MSVC with "living on the edge" compile flags
> (/c++lat
Hi,
Il 09/09/19 14:44, Mutz, Marc via Development ha scritto:
3. The wider C++ community seems to settle for non-versioned checks if
the initial version is sufficient, which may mean that Qt introduces an
impedance mismatch for pre-standard values where Qt checks the version
and users and other
On Monday, 9 September 2019 05:44:15 PDT Mutz, Marc via Development wrote:
> 1. For the writer of the code, having to add the version check means
> researching the history of a feature to unearth the value with which the
> feature was originally added. cppreference.com is not very helpful in
> that
Hi,
Qt uses C++ feature test macros (__cpp_...) to detect post-C++11
features, and the status quo is that we only support compilers that
provide them.
This proposal does not intend to change this.
This proposal intends to change the de-facto status quo in how we check
these feature macros.
11 matches
Mail list logo
